Photo of James Kachmar

James Kachmar

Subscribe to James Kachmar's Posts

James is a shareholder in Weintraub Tobin’s litigation section.  He represents corporate and individual clients in both state and federal courts in various business litigation matters, including trade secret misappropriation, unfair business competition, stockholder disputes, and intellectual property disputes.

Follow:Read more about James KachmarJames's Linkedin Profile

In late March 2024, California Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill, AB 2751, that would recognize a right for employees in California to “disconnect” or ignore communications from their employer during certain non-work hours.  The Bill, in its current form, requires an employer to establish a workplace policy that will allow employees “the right to disconnect” from communications from their employer during non-working hours, except for emergencies and/or scheduling purposes.  The policy must define working vs. non-working hours and make clear that employees have the right to ignore communications from the employer during the policy’s specified non-working hours.  The proposed law also provides employees the right to file a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner if the employer engages in a pattern of violations of this new law. Finally, the proposed new law states that while violations may not be punished as a misdemeanor, the employer could be subject to a fine of not less than $100 as a result of a pattern of violation of the proposed new law.Continue Reading California Legislature Considers Employee’s “Right to Disconnect”

Last October, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1076 into law and it became effective as of January 1, 2024.  AB 1076 was the Legislature’s attempt to codify the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, which held that non-compete agreements in the employment context are unenforceable unless they fall within one of the three narrow statutory exceptions dealing primarily with the sale of business interests.  AB 1076 makes clear that requiring an employee to enter into a non-compete is unlawful and can subject the employer to penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.Continue Reading Employers Beware: The Deadline to Comply with Notification Requirement of California’s New Non-Compete Law is Rapidly Approaching!

Our Blog has been monitoring the ETS that OSHA issued in November 2021 that mandated employers of 100 or more employees to require their employees to obtain COVID-19 vaccinations or undergo regular COVID-19 testing instead.  We have kept you informed as this ETS made its way through the courts.  First, implementation of the ETS was stayed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (see blog on 11/18/2021), then the stay was lifted by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (see blog on 12/20/2021), and finally, argument was held before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ordered that the stay be put back in place after a majority of the Court found that OSHA had exceeded its authority in issuing the ETS (see blog on 12/23/2021 and blog on 1/13/2022). (Please note the Court let stand the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate for certain healthcare workers.)
Continue Reading Federal OSHA Withdraws COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard

Earlier this week, Beth West wrote a blog update about the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the stay of OSHA’s vaccine or test mandate that applies to employers with more than 100 employees (Click here to read). Ms. West noted that the challengers to the mandate would seek immediate review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Appellants in those cases filed their appeals of the 6th Circuit’s ruling and filed applications to again stay the OSHA vaccine or test mandate.
Continue Reading US Supreme Court Will Hear OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate Challenge on Expedited Basis

In 2018, in response to the #MeToo movement, California enacted Senate Bill 820 which added section 1001 to the California Code of Civil Procedure and prohibited employers from including provisions into settlement agreements that prevent the disclosure of factual information relating to claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment, harassment in a professional relationship, discrimination based on sex, or retaliation that had been made in connection with a civil lawsuit or administrative action.  Senate Bill 820 took effect on January 1, 2019.   Notably, it applied only to claims based on sex and not other forms of harassment or discrimination nor did it apply to settlement or severance agreements signed before an employee filed a lawsuit.
Continue Reading Employers Beware – Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions Face Further Restrictions